Email is broken. Here's how to realise your inbox zero dream

Ramez Naam: 'Science will save the planet (if we let it)'

This article was taken from the May 2013 issue of Wired magazine. Be the first to read Wired's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by <span class="s1">subscribing online.

We live on the edge of what our planet can sustain. Carbon emissions are heating the atmosphere. Fisheries have decimated life in the oceans.

Advertisement

Agriculture has led to the destruction of half of our forests.

Meanwhile, the global population is set to increase by two billion people by 2050. Billions more will rise out of poverty, hungry for richer diets, larger homes, cars and greater access to energy and manufactured goods.

Read next

North Korea's 50 kiloton nuclear test reveals its true capabilities

ByLily Hay Newman

We will not get out of this situation by living simply. Even the most draconian reductions will not suffice to avoid dangerous climate change or to make enough food available to feed nine billion people a western-style diet.

Nor will we escape this by ending growth -- almost all of which will happen in the developing world. It would neither be just nor feasible to deny the majority of humanity access to the riches the developed world has enjoyed for years.

There is only one way out of this situation. We must grow the size of the global pie -- increase the resources we have available, whilst reducing our impact on the planet. That means new developments in science and technology. But they can only help the world if we accept what science has to offer us, even when it conflicts with our reactions.

Advertisement

We must learn to set our emotions aside and embrace what science tells us

Genetically modified organism (GMO) foods are feared and hated by environmentalists and the public alike. Yet the scientific assessment of GMOs is remarkably different. Every major scientific evaluation of GMO technology has concluded that GMOs are safe for human consumption and are a benefit to the environment.

Read next

'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'. The story of Oppenheimer's infamous quote

ByJames Temperton

In 2010 the European Commission, looking back on a decade of GMO research spanning 500 groups, concluded that they " are not per se more risky than... conventional plant breeding techniques." In 2011, the French Supreme Court struck down France's ban on a Monsanto GMO corn on the basis that the French government had shown no evidence of risk to humans or the environment. And an analysis of GMO usage by the US National Academy of Science concludes that "GE crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-GE crops produced conventionally." They've done this by reducing dangerous pesticides and fertiliser runoff and the need for additional tilling that dries soil and releases more carbon into the atmosphere.

GMOs with more dramatic benefits are on the horizon.

Golden Rice will provide Vitamin A to millions of children. New strains of rice and wheat which photosynthesise like faster-growing corn would allow us to feed more of the world while sparing our forests. Other GMOs on the drawing board would self-fertilise from the atmosphere or reduce the need for irrigation. Will environmentalists fight these pro-environment technologies because they are "unnatural"?

The response to nuclear power is equally unscientific. The Tohoku tsunami that struck Japan in 2011 killed 15,848 men, women and children. The resulting crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, by contrast, caused no radiation-related fatalities. But the emotional response to Fukushima has helped spur a European renaissance of coal -- our most carbon-emitting and climate-destroying energy source. In the UK, coal is the top source of electrical power -- this is despite the scientific assessment that coal power plants release more radiation per MWh than nuclear plants, that they damage the climate more, and that the pollution they spew causes more than 100,000 global deaths each year.

Advertisement

Our responses to things we deem "unnatural" are strong. But science is our best tool to understand -- and save -- the world around us. We must learn to set our emotions aside and embrace what science tells us. GMOs and nuclear power are two of the most effective and most important green technologies we have. If -- after looking at the data -- you aren't in favour of using them responsibly, you aren't an environmentalist.